Except in Pursuance of An Appropriation Made by Law."

FACTS:
Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech on September 25,

2013, in order to reveal that some of his colleague, including himself had been allotted
an additional 50 Million Pesos each as incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment
of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Senator Florencio Abad of the Department of
Budget and Management [DBM] upon responding to the disclosure made by Senator
Estrada, issued a public statement that explained the funds released to the senators
had been part of the Disbursement Acceleration Program [DAP], a program designed by
the DBM to rise up spending to accelerate economic expansion. He cleared it out that
the funds that were released to the Senators were subsequent to the letter of request
for such funding.
The said expose` of Senator Estrada as well as the reactions of Secretary Abad
of the Department of Budget and Management brought the DAP to the consciousness
of the Nation for the first time, and made present controversy inevitable. Nine petitions
assault the constitutionality and validity of the DAP together with the issuances in
relation to the DAP were filed in court. In G.R No. 209287 [Araullo], the petitioner also
brought to the Courts attention NBC No, 541 which was issued to implement the DAP,
directed the withdrawal of unobligated allotments of government agencies and offices
with low levels of obligations, both for continuing and current allotments.
ISSUES:
Whether or not certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are proper remedies to assail
the constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement Acceleration Program, NBC No.
541, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP.
Whether or not the Disbursement Acceleration Program violates Sec. 29, Art. VI of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541 and all other executive issuances
allegedly implementing the DAP violate Sec. 25, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
insofar as:
1. They treat the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments
withdrawn from government agencies as savings as the term is used in
Sec. 25(5), in relation to the provisions of the General Appropriations Acts
of 2011,2012 and 2013;
2. They authorize the disbursement of funds for projects or programs not
provided in the GAAs for the Executive Department; and
3. They augment discretionary lump sum appropriations in the GAAs.
Whether or not the DAP violates the:

1. Equal Protection Clause,
2. System of Checks and Balances
3. Principle of Public Accountability enshrined in the 1987 Constitution considering
that it authorizes the release of funds upon request of legislators
Whether or not the release of unprogrammed funds under the Disbursement
Acceleration Program was accord with the General Appropriations Act.
HELD:
Yes, the court partially grants the petitions for certiorari and prohibition. The present
rules of court used two civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for
certiorari and prohibition and both are governed by Rule 65. The remedies for certiorari
and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach and the writ for certiorari
and prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a
tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions but also to set right undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch instrumentality of the
Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph
of Section 1: The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established. Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are
appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or
nullify the acts of legislative and executive officials.
No, because the DAP did not violate Sec. 29 Article VI of 1987 Constitution. The
court held that no law was necessary for the adoption and implementation of the DAP
because it is neither a fund nor an appropriation, but a program or an administrative
system of prioritizing spending; and that the adoption of the DAP was by virtue of the
authority of the President being the Chief Executive to ensure that laws were faithfully
executed and that he could pool the savings and identify that has to be funded under
the DAP. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP, and the identification of the PAPs
to be funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation in the strict sense because the
money had been already set apart from the public treasury by congress through the
GAAs. In such actions, the Executive did not usurp the power vested in congress under
Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution.
Yes, the court declares that the following acts and practices under DAP, NBC No.
541 and related issuances UNSCONTITUTIONAL for the reason that the unreleased
appropriations and unobligated allotments under the DAP were not savings and the use
of such appropriations contravened Section 25 [5] of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
The definitions of savings in the General Appropriations Acts, is particularly for 2011,
2012 and 2013, that reflects this interpretation and made it operational: Savings refer to
portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any
obligation or encumbrance which are from:
a.
Availability after the completion of final discontinuance or abandonment of the
work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized
b.
Appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs
pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and
c.
Appropriations balances realized from the implementation of measures
resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to
meet and deliver or planned targets, programs and services approved in this
ACT at a lesser cost.
The aforementioned three instances listed in GAAs were a sure indication that
savings could be generated only upon the purpose of the appropriation being fulfilled, or
upon the need for the appropriation being no longer existent. The appropriations are
unreleased and unallotted if they have not yet ripened into categories of items from
which savings can be generated. Unreleased appropriations may be considered savings
unless these met the statutory definition of savings, on the otherhand unobligated
allotments, could not be indiscriminately declared as savings without first determining
whether any of the three instances existed. This signified that DBMs withdrawal of
unobligated allotments had disregarded the definition of savings under GAAs.
The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid under section 25 [5] must be made
upon a concurrence of the following requisites:
1. There is a law that authorizes the President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief of the Supreme Court and the
heads of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer within their respective offices
2. That the funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for
their respective offices
3. That the purposes of the transfer is to augment an item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices. Section 25 [5] must have an implementing
law for it to be operative.
That law, generally is the General Appropriations Act of a given fiscal year therefore,
transfers or realignment should only be made within their respective offices, Under the
DAP, even though some projects were within the Executive, these projects are nonexistent insofar as the GAA is concerned because no funds were appropriated to them
in the GAA. Although some of these projects may be legitimate, they are still nonexistent under the GAA because they were not provided for by GAA. As such, transfer
to such projects is unconstitutional and is without legal basis.
The Constitution states that, the power to augment may only be made to
increase any item in General Appropriations law for their respective offices disallowing
cross border transfer was disobeyed. Under the DAP funds appropriated by the GAA for
the Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and other non-Executive which
were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA, further, Cross-border transfers,
whether as augmentation, or as aid were prohibited under Section 25 [5].
No because the supposed discrimination in the release of funds under the DAP
could be raised only by the affected Members of Congress themselves, and if the
challenge based on the violation of the Equal protection Clause was really the
constitutionality of the DAP, the arguments of the petitioners should be directed to the
entitlement of the legislators to the funds, not to the proposition that all of the legislators
should have been given such entitlement. The challenge based on the contravention of
the Equal Protection Clause, which focuses on the release of funds under the DAP to
legislators, lacks factual and legal basis. The allegations about Senators and
Congressman being unaware of the existence and implementation of the DAP and
those some having refused to accept such funds were unsupported with relevant data.
Also, the claim that the executive discriminated against some legislators on the ground
alone of their receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a finding of
contravention of the Equal protection Clause. The denial of equal protection clause of
any law should be raised only by the parties who supposedly suffer it, the reason for this
requirement is that only such affected party could properly and fully bring to the fore
when and how the denial of equal protection occurred and explain why there was a
denial in their situation, such requirement were not met. The court was not put in the
position to determine if there was a denial of equal protection, if do so despite the
inadequacy of showing factual and legal support, the outcome would not do justice to
those for whose supposed benefit the claim of denial of equal protection has been
made.
Disbursement Acceleration Program did not transgress the system of Checks
and Balances for that reason that the DAP and its implementing issuances infringing the
doctrine of separation of powers effectively addressed this particular matter.
The principle of Public Accountability was not violated because of the adoption
and implementation of the DAP constituted an assumption by the Executive of
Congress power of appropriation, further, DAP and its implementing issuances were
policies and acts that the Executive could properly adopt and do in the execution of the
GAAs to the extent that they sought to implement strategies to ramp up or accelerate
the economy of the country.
No, sourcing the DAP from unprogrammed funds though the original revenue targets
not having been exceeded was invalid, because under the law, such funds may only be
used if there is a certification from the National Treasurer to the effect that the revenue
collections have exceeded the revenue targets. In this case, no such certification was
secured before unprogrammed funds were used.

Except in Pursuance of An Appropriation Made by Law."

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Except in Pursuance of An Appropriation Made by Law."

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Except in Pursuance of An Appropriation Made by Law."

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech on September 25,

Whether or not the DAP violates the:

You might also like